US Unilateralism & extra-territorial law: A sign of weakness?

[Imran Siddiqui]

May be I'm mistaken, but I think that this is exactly what el freako are talking about.

I doubt he is... because then just about every nation would be guilty of unilateralism.

[Serb]

Do you think that ratification of Koyto's treaty was in self interest of other countries who signed it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I do... they want cleaner air.

But what the Hell does that have to do with anything I said?

[Serb]

By the price of decline in their industry growth, right?
Then why the same is not in self-interests of USA then? What, USA has different self-interests? Is it absolutely different type of a country? Americans do not want a cleaner air? or they do not want to pay price for it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course the US has different interests. What type of dumb question is that ?

The US pays more per capita, energy wise, than the European nations do, so it'd be harder for the US to move down the pike. And the US values cheap gas over cleaner air, much more than those guys across the pond do.

[Serb]

Then one final qustion American want more cleaner air or not?
If answer will be yes, then I call such actions as unilateralism.
Sure, we want a cleaner air but let's other countries pay for this, not we are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not at the expense of our economy. We'd take somewhat filthier air for a continual high standard of living .

And how would that be unilaterialism if we wanted clean air, and wanted to have other countries pay for it? Me thinks you have no idea what unilateralism is.

Then one final qustion American want more cleaner air or not?
If answer will be yes, then I call such actions as unilateralism.
Sure, we want a cleaner air but let's other countries pay for this, not we are.

Do Russians want a more economic aid or not?
If the answer will be yes, then I call such actions as unilateralism
Sure, we want more economic aid, but let the US pay for this.



---

What is your point anyway? Frankly, your arguments are making no sense whatsoever. You are jumping from one issue to another for no apparent reason, and making broad generalizations and misusing terminology.

We were talking about every country agreeing to international treaties that violate their national interest and we went to this non sequiter.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Serb
You forgot to include revoke of ATBM treaty signed between USA and SU in 1972 at this list, and I think Yougoslavia must be added. And don't tell me that it was in coalition, USA was the flagman of this coalition, other NATO countries as I think do not wanted to be involved in this.

By far the most influential agency in convincing the U.S. to bomb Yugoslavia was the BBC. A majority of the population of the U.S. as well as it's national politicians were against intervention nonetheless, but the mental midgets of the Clinton foreign policy team were the most gung ho of any part of the government, and eventually congress aquiesed to the fairly recent tradition of allowing the President to fight undeclared wars.

The strongest support probably came from Britain and Germany, while Greece strongly opposed the intervention, and typically France supported it while they tried to cut the legs from the U.S.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Sikander

... the mental midgets of the Clinton foreign policy team were the most gung ho of any part of the government...

Agree so far, but there had to be more behind it. While Rambouillet was still pending and the situation might have continued along with OSCE observers and lower violence levels.... along came the insane *****, and ka-boom. "Forget negotiations, let's bomb Serbia, and follow-up strategy, exit strategy, what's that?"

Germany and France were quite reluctant (and pissed at Notatallbright). Britain wasn't too happy too, it seemed, mostly for the lack of plan. I still have no explanation for US policy in that case. Maybe it's Clinton's ****-related.

[Serb]

Me thinks you have no idea what unilateralism is.

May be you are right. As I understand unilateralism means one sided actions. Am I mistaken?

USA refusal of the Kyoto treaty is one sided action, because every other country which signed this treaty, also do not want to have a clean air at the expense of their economy, but those countries realize that there is no another way.

Do Russians want a more economic aid or not?

Only not from USA. Thanks a lot for your aid.
Do you realy think that it is in self-interest of USA to help Russia? Do you think USA want a strong and prosper R.F.? What profit they can gain if they create a competitor for them?

[Sikander]

It could be. I have an extremely low opinion of the Clintons, but even I don't want to believe that he would stoop that low. But you are correct, the whole thing accelerated very quickly, suspiciously so. This might also have been an attempt to rush congress and the people along and not allow the time for another debate. Polls and political support were consistently against military intervention, and he only got troops into Bosnia by making a lot of promises which he had already broken.

Clinton was so egotistical that he was convinced that he was going to leave a foreign policy legacy of these sorts of interventions. He was correct in a sense, but the legacy is one of reluctance to get involved. Even Kennedy's foreign policy team was better. They were dangerous, but not completely stupid.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Serb

Only not from USA. Thanks a lot for your aid.
Do you realy think that it is in self-interest of USA to help Russia? Do you think USA want a strong and prosper R.F.? What profit they can gain if they create a competitor for them?

Some of us don't see you as a competitor at all. We really don't have anything to fight about. Our economies are completely different, our mutual border is not disputed and far from the critical industries of our countries. We want you strong because you are next to China, and if it comes to it, the EU.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Sikander
But you are correct, the whole thing accelerated very quickly, suspiciously so. This might also have been an attempt to rush congress and the people along and not allow the time for another debate.

The best scenario I can come up with would be: Clinton's clowns are convinced that with a little bombing the Kosovo problem can be solved (ie in their view, removed from the headlines), and for some reason saw a window of opportunity to do it quickly. But why ?

Sure, Milosevic had been escalating, but also backstepping....

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sikander


Some of us don't see you as a competitor at all. We really don't have anything to fight about.

I am glad that you think so.

Our economies are completely different, our mutual border is not disputed and far from the critical industries of our countries. We want you strong because you are next to China, and if it comes to it, the EU.

But self-interests of our countries are different too, sometimes extremly different.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
The best scenario I can come up with would be: Clinton's clowns are convinced that with a little bombing the Kosovo problem can be solved (ie in their view, removed from the headlines), and for some reason saw a window of opportunity to do it quickly. But why ?

Sure, Milosevic had been escalating, but also backstepping....

I think they wanted to move American foreign policy toward a Wilsonian model, and wanted a success to prove the value and viability of their model. Albright has been quoted as saying, "What's the use of having a military if you don't use it?". Republicans typically have been more reluctant to use force, and more decisive when they do use it, and they are far more interested in using it for 'the national interest'. Clinton's actions here run counter to this in every way. The use of force was not in our national interest, it was rushed into, and they used a gradualist model of incremental escalation until political pressure from the Pentagon and Republicans forced them to turn up the heat. In a sense this was an attempt to turn American foreign policy on it's head, away from self-interest and balance of power considerations and toward internationalist and humanitarian concerns. The complexity of these issues seemed not to bother the crusading impetus of Clinton's team in the conception stage, but the difficulties of execution both here and in Somalia and Haiti kept Clinton's policies limited.